Their Worst
Nightmare

November 23,
2007

The
recent endorsement of Rudy by televangelist Pat Robertson has turned the
former mayors supporters at National Review (NR),
the New York Post, and other obliging outposts of the
neoconservative empire from a state of hope to one of outright jubilation. If
Lawrence Kudlow, NR economics editor, is correct, the nomination
has been wrapped up.

Perhaps political observers such as George Will, Rich
Lowry, and Bill Kristol can now get on with anointing the Republican
vice-presidential candidate. One might guess from their comments that they
have already given the nod to Mike Huckabee, the former governor of
Arkansas who is being played up as a social conservative. This
move is advertised as an attempt to bestow some kind of balance on the
Republican ticket; however, as commentator Phyllis Schlafly has noted, his
effect on conservatism in the state has been profoundly negative. Moreover,
the erstwhile governor leans decidedly leftward on immigration; unlike Rudy,
he may feel genuine shame about hiding his real views on a controversial
subject. Huckabee also has the tiresome habit of bewailing American racism
every time the word black comes up. One is led to wonder whether
he can look at anything covered with that color without trying to reach out.

It is hard to see how Huckabee can contribute
ideological balance to Rudys blustering presence, except possibly for
his opposition to abortion. But like Michael Gerson, another sensitized
Evangelical, Huckabee seems unable to express his opinion on any hot social
issue without going on about slavery and the supposed racist intention of
some pro-choice liberals. This guy may be a Baptist from Arkansas, but he
shows some of the same rhetorical tics as those displayed by generic liberals
whom I meet in the Big Apple. Having him on the Republican ticket in any case
should cause no queasiness for the Wall Street Journal-NR
crowd.

The problem for the neocons trying to come up big in
the presidential sweepstakes, however, may be the curmudgeonly war
protester Ron Paul. Despite their success with a fading televangelist who
now shills for the GOP (in 2004, God supposedly spoke to Pat and predicted
that W would be reelected), the neocons and those Republican leaders they
have convinced to back Rudy for being good on terror cannot
remove Paul from the race. A septuagenarian Texas obstetrician and
congressman who is now running for the presidency, Paul is very much his
own man. The neocons approach to Pauls candidacy follows
closely their tactics in dealing with the Old Right  generally to ignore
him while hinting broadly that he may be (surprise!) an anti-
Semite. After all, he has used the word neoconservative
without intending to convey a compliment and is against giving foreign aid (a
policy that may or may not negatively affect Israel).

This
week the left-liberal website Salon.com noticed the prevalence of this effort to ignore or
run down Paul in the mainstream media. The neocons and their liberal talking
partners, obviously hoping that Paul and his followers will drop off the Earth,
have ignored him in the expectation that this would happen. To their chagrin,
it has not.

In less than a month, according to the most recent
Marist survey, his polls numbers have risen from 2 percent to
more than 7 percent. Right now Paul is running neck and neck
with the Baptist preacher from Arkansas and only 6 points behind the
plummeting John McCain. In one day recently, Dr. Pauls
staff raised more than $4 million dollars on the Internet, a
medium that the neocons and their talking partners do not effectively
control. Given the fervor of Pauls following, the present ascent of
the Texas congressman may continue for some time.

Although he is identified as a libertarian, anti-war
candidate, Pauls appeal is to the Old Right as well. He is a devout
Lutheran who opposes abortion and is critical of the sloppy immigration
policies of the Bush administration and its Democratic opposition. He also
calls himself a Taft Republican, while raging against the neocons
foreign policy, as I heard him do at a rally in Philadelphia. His staff is
honeycombed with paleolibertarians and paleoconservatives  in short
with people itching to settle scores with the neocon usurpers of the
American Right. The older members of this group have fought and lost wars
against the neocons that were professionally costly; what they now want
more than anything else is what the French nationalists called for against the
Germans after losing the Franco-Prussian War: revenge.

Nobody but a true believer would imagine that Paul
could win the Republican nomination, which apparently a neocon candidate has
sown up. What he could do, and is likely to achieve if he runs as a third-party
candidate, is to make sure the neocons lose by pulling in his direction a large
number of voters who usually support the Republicans. That would have the
effect of putting Hillary into the White House, an outcome that many of
Pauls followers would accept as the lesser of two evils. Such an
outcome would not displease those of Pauls backers who are above all
concerned about not seeing Giuliani and his neocon-packed retinue take over
the government. For neocons at least, what used to be bright skies are
clouding over.

FGF E-Package columns by Joe Sobran, Sam Francis, Paul Gottfried, and
others are available in a special e-mail subscription provided by the Fitzgerald
Griffin Foundation. Click
here for more information.